On Wed, 5 Mar 2014, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 5 March 2014 19:36, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
this issue got delayed in LWG, apparently because of a failed "improvement"
to the wording along the way (happens, that's ok), but there seems to be a
consensus on the resolution and I don't really see the point of waiting (it
changes code that currently returns a reference to a temporary).
Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu. Stage 1?
Yes, OK for Stage 1. Please put _GLIBCXX_RESOLVE_DEFECTS (or whatever
it is we use elsewhere) in the comment, rather than just "DR 2106".
r209323
(again, only posting because this was accepted long ago)
--
Marc Glisse
